Extra Letters of Recommendation?

[PorchlightPhilosopher]

Greetings all,

I have a question and would very much appreciate the thoughts of others on it: I am wondering whether or not is is a bad idea to send four letters of recommendation to schools that specify three letters?

Some schools specify three, some 3+, some 3-5, etc.  In the same light, some schools want a writing sample of 10-15 pages, some 15-25, some 20-25, etc.  From what I've gathered, adcoms generally understand the differences in requirements and aren't bothered by a writing sample that is outside their specific parameters, so would the same apply to sending four letters of recommendation to a school that specified "three" as opposed to "3+"?

I have four professors who would write great letters on my behalf, but they all have their unique pros.  For instance, I come from a predominantly analytic department and am applying to predominantly continental departments; of the four professors two are continental and two are analytic, three of them are VERY well-known but it is one of the two continental professors who is an unknown adjunct, though he came from a well-respected continental program.  It'd be nice to have two writers who are continental philosophers, but it'd also be nice to have three writers who are all very well-known and respected.  

It'd be nicest to be able to submit letters from all of them to every institution (since I will be asking all four for letters for the schools that specify that they accept more than three), but I also understand how that could be interpreted as pretentious or trying to "cheat" by sliding a little something extra in, and I certainly would rather have to make a tough choice about which writer to be the "extra" than convey any sense of pretentiousness about myself. 

Thoughts? 

Thanks

EDIT: It occurred to me about 10 minutes after posting this that schools who specify three letters probably have in place some sort of technological safeguard in place (i.e. only have three "upload slots" for letters of recommendation per applicant, so once three professors have uploaded letters for a particular applicant no more can).  This may not be the case, and for conversational purposes we should either investigate further or assume it to be not the case, that in fact it is possible for four letters to be uploaded.

Edited September 11, 2015 by PorchlightPhilosopher

[.letmeinplz//]

I sent 4 to some schools that accepted more than 3, some said they would just read the first 3 and some may or may not have read all 4.

If the 4th letter doesn't add anything that the other 3 haven't already said though, just go with the strongest 3. If you think all 4 are equally strong, the worse thing that is going to happen is they are only going to read 3 of them.

[philstudent1991]

If you have three well known letter writers, and the fourth is an unknown adjunct, then it doesnt sound like you have a compelling reason to submit four. 

[TakeruK]

If the 4th letter isn't as good as the other three, then don't submit it. I would say this holds even for the programs that say they "accept 3-5 letters". I'm not sure every committee in every field will view it the same way, but I think 3 strong letters is much better than 3 strong letter + 1 good letter. 

[jjb919]

As distasteful as it may be, I have to agree with the advice given here. Of course adcoms want letters from people who know you well and can speak to your strengths as a philosopher. If the unknown adjunct professor knows you better and can write a stronger, more personal letter, then you may want to consider including that one. An excellent and personal reference letter can trump a luke-warm letter from a big name. But assuming that all the letters are equal in strength, which you seem to suggest in your post, then a strong letter from a well-known philosopher is going to trump a strong letter from an unknown adjunct professor. Unfortunate but true. Adcoms are going to stick more weight on to a reference from someone they know and whose reputation is known. It gives more substance and context to the letter.

Further, given that one of the three very well-known philosophers specializes in continental philosophy, I think you have enough of your bases covered to justify dropping the letter from the unknown adjunct. 

I've seen online application systems not allow you to register a fourth reference if three have already been registered. Or, in the case where they accept 4 references, but only read three, it would be unfortunate (again, assuming all four letters are equally strong) if they read two letters from well-known philosophers and one from an unknown adjunct, where that third from a well-known philosopher would have helped your application a bit more.

[PorchlightPhilosopher]

Thank-you for the input, all.  It seems that my original question has been answered: no need to send four to schools that specify three (which, seems a bit more obvious in retrospect).

The choice is a bit tougher than I may have initially let on, however.  The unknown adjunct arguably knows me the best, the only other one who knows me as well would be the very well-known professor in Continental philosophy. The two well-known analytic philosophers I've had only one class with, but they both enjoyed me as a student very much (one offered to write me a letter before I even asked, so I already penciled him in as definite; I also find it good that we agreed on just about nothing in class yet he still has very good things to say about me).

The adjunct I've had one class with thus far, but he knows me much better because of things like philosophy club (which the others didn't attend at all), a great deal of time in office hours, as well as a reading group this summer that he organized (the other continental specialist was also involved in the reading group, though he pulled out as the semester neared and he became busier).  We've talked at length about various philosophers (not class related) and he's even given me a couple of books.  I'm also applying to his alma mater (which is a very well-respected continental program) and a couple other programs where he knows one or two people.  Unfortunately, his alma mater is one of the schools that specifies only three letters.  We've also talked at length about grad school, and he's even suggested what are now three of the programs which I am very interested in.

The other potential option is very well-known, but for work in analytic philosophy (though her course that I took was a special topics course, and the topic was one that I could very much envision continental philosophers being interested in).  She's very enthusiastic and is always full of positive things to say, but she's also very busy.  My only interactions with her outside of class were at an in-house conference where we spoke at decent length and department events such as lunches or coffee hours.

Though a choice must be made, I'm not sure how easy of a decision it is.  I very much appreciate everyone's input, but as there is a lot of local knowledge involved in this decision, I may be better off consulting with my one professor (the well-known continental) with whom I'm doing an independent study.

Thanks again, everyone!

[TakeruK]

To clarify, in my above post where I said it's better to have 3 strong letters than 3 strong letters + 1 good letter, I didn't mean to necessarily imply that the adjunct's letter would be the "good" letter compared to the other three. I agree with you that only you (perhaps with consultation of your mentors) can decide which of these 3 letters are the "strong" one.

Instead, the purpose of my above post was to say that I don't think the impact/weight of LORs are "cumulative". That is, even for schools that will read all 4 letters, I don't think "more is better". I actually feel like LORs are "averaged out" so that if you include a good letter with 3 "strong" letters, the impact of the 3 "strong" letters will be diluted. I think this is because professors will just read all of the letters and then form an opinion about you based on all the submitted letters. So, including an additional "good" letter will not be as productive.

In terms of what makes a letter strong, here is my general opinion of the important factors, in order of importance:

1. How well does the letter writer know your scholarship?
2. How much experience does your letter writer have in supervising students? For example, it is a big difference when a new professor says "Student X is the best student ever!" compared to a professor with decades of experience saying the same.
3. How much weight will this person's opinion have? For example, if the letter writer is a graduate of the program you're applying to, they would be able to speak specifically about your ability to succeed in the exact same program.

Finally, although this part might not be relevant in fields outside of my own, I do not think the specific subfield of your letter writer matters at all. When students apply to, for example, work on exoplanets in an astronomy department, their application is reviewed by an admission committee made up of professors from all the subfields in astronomy, not just evaluated by other exoplanet scientists. So, having lots of letters from just exoplanets isn't going to be worth more, and having letters from other areas of astronomy might even be better as you'll connect with more members of the admission committee. So, while it's nice to have at least 1 person from your own subfield, I don't think having more than one is worth any more!

[sidebysondheim]

Finally, although this part might not be relevant in fields outside of my own, I do not think the specific subfield of your letter writer matters at all. When students apply to, for example, work on exoplanets in an astronomy department, their application is reviewed by an admission committee made up of professors from all the subfields in astronomy, not just evaluated by other exoplanet scientists. So, having lots of letters from just exoplanets isn't going to be worth more, and having letters from other areas of astronomy might even be better as you'll connect with more members of the admission committee. So, while it's nice to have at least 1 person from your own subfield, I don't think having more than one is worth any more!

I don't think this is a perfectly analogous case to philosophy, but ultimately I think this is good advice in your case. If these two analytic philosophers are as well known as you claim then the adcoms will know that having two letters from analytic philosophers is just because of the department you were in. Probably more importantly, your writing sample is going to tell them that you can do continental at a high level, not having an extra continental philosopher writing you a letter.

[PorchlightPhilosopher]

I don't think this is a perfectly analogous case to philosophy, but ultimately I think this is good advice in your case. If these two analytic philosophers are as well known as you claim then the adcoms will know that having two letters from analytic philosophers is just because of the department you were in. Probably more importantly, your writing sample is going to tell them that you can do continental at a high level, not having an extra continental philosopher writing you a letter.

This is a very good point.  In addition to my writing sample having much more to say about my continental competency, I think there is also something to be said about analytic philosophers holding a (very) continentally inclined in high regard.  Not to mention they've been teaching much longer than the adjunct, so their opinion also probably carries more weight in that sense.